Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR. Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.
The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position. There is no secret. You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position. I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him. There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind. You have your opinion and it conflicts
with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!
As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it. Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR. Why should we believe you over the authorities?
The Act itself is in opposition to the OCA Tomos in what it secures as ROCOR's status.
Here is a section from an official statement from ROCOR hierarchy addressing her clergy and faithful who brought up the same points both you and Fr. Ambrose make together:
" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.
Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be.
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.
Howver, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime. That paragraph states: “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the extermination in Russia of the godless regime, is self-governing on conciliar principles…”
With the abolishment of the godless regime in Russia, this paragraph loses its force, and cannot remain as the basis for the canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
Therefore, it was necessary to establish a new, indisputable canonical status recognized by the full complement of Universal Orthodoxy for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, while preserving its original condition of being an “indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.”
This in fact was achieved in the “Act on Canonical Communion” approved and confirmed at the latest Synod of Bishops.
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany
+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America
+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe
+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan
+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland
In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.
I think the start was this:
"ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci"
(ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor.""http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCAThen other issues explained here:http://tinyurl.com/d5k9eahttp://tinyurl.com/d5g6xv
I think it is important to add that I personally have no problem with ROCOR and OCA working out their differences. I am only posting what ROCOR is telling her clergy and faithful on these matters.